Descriptive study examines benefits and challenges of digital consultations in older adults, suggesting need for improved accessibility.
Objective Despite having high healthcare needs and being suitable candidates for digital health consultations, older adults (OAs) use these practices less commonly, and are more likely to encounter challenges, which reduces digital health equity. The objective of this study was to examine the experiences of OAs and healthcare staff (HS) using and participating in digital consultations. Methods A descriptive approach was employed, using both structured and semi-structured interviews with OAs (≥65 years) and HS who had completed a digital health consultation via video or asynchronous chat within the past week. Interview data were analysed with thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. Results The descriptive data ( N = 33 OAs; 13 HS, each reporting on the same 33 consultations) indicated that both OAs and HS gave mainly positive feedback about their recent digital health consultations, while the qualitative data offered a more nuanced perspective. About half of the OAs would choose a digital consultation again for the same health issue, if given the choice. Practical benefits and professional benefits were highlighted, though benefits for care were also noted by both OAs and HS. Barriers were primarily technical, affecting the conversation in various ways. Barriers to care also arose, mainly relating to experiences of deteriorated contact with the HS. Conclusion Digital health consultations offer significant practical benefits for both OAs and HS, and sometimes also benefit care. However, persistent technical and relational barriers highlight the need for improved usability and adaptability. Addressing these challenges and supporting individual preferences are essential steps toward increasing accessibility and ensuring equitable access to digital consultations for OAs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Myrberg et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: